A society governed by freedom contains morality, morality that derives from rights that must be respected to preserve integrity. In his article “A Right to do Wrong”, Ethics, vol. 92 (1981), pp. 21-39, Jeremy Waldron argues that if people in a society take moral rights seriously, they must accept the individual's “right to do evil” from a moral perspective. Having the ability to choose to do evil from a moral point of view creates diversity in a society which leads to the development of society as a whole. Waldron proposes a paradox to explain his position on individuals having the moral right to act in ways that might be seen as wrong from a moral point of view. I will explain and outline Jeremy Waldron's position on the idea that individuals have a moral right to do evil, and I will also evaluate Jeremy Waldron's position and demonstrate whether there really is such a moral right using my own views which will be reinforced by John Stewart Mill points of view. Jeremy Waldron begins with the clarification that if we take moral rights seriously we must accept the possibility that an individual can do something that is morally wrong. I will begin by illustrating what Waldron means by this right. Before even considering the meaning of “right to do wrong,” Waldron makes clear that he is looking at “wrongs” from a moral, not a legal, point of view. “Right to do evil” means that an action is morally wrong but is an action that an individual has the moral right to do. It is suggested that an individual does not have to act immorally but has the choice to do so. Waldron wishes to respond to the inconsistencies in the paradox of the moral right to do evil. One way Waldron says we misunderstand the moral right to do evil is… middle of paper… those misunderstandings and explains why we have that moral right to do evil. I agree with Waldron's views as they relate to the improvement of a diverse society. we now know that Waldron is examining “wrongs” from a moral, not a legal, point of view. It can be objected that his conception is limited because it deals only with morality and leaves the legal point of view aside. But does it really matter? Waldron is only talking about morality, and since legal positivism suggests that law and morality should be separated so that they can be analyzed in more detail, it shouldn't matter if he wasn't focusing on the legal question but valorizing the idea of ​​morality that ? will it serve and strengthen legality later? a general look at Waldron's ideas can conclude that his ideas are logical and difficult to refute because he tells the truth about having the moral right to do evil.